This followup is in news.groups; it's not RFD

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

>>. . .

>Most servers will perform checkgroups. I don't care about those that
>not do.

There are three control messages, not one. newgroup, rmgroup,
checkgroups

This gives the News administrator flexibility. The News administrator
and not the hierarchy administrator runs Usenet. A News administrator is
under no obligation to recognize the same set of newsgroups as the
hierarchy administrator does. But if he creates a newsgroup that the
hierarchy administrator also recognizes, then he has been informed what
the syntactically correct name is.

There are plenty of News administrator who do not process checkgroups at
all, or don't process it around the time the hierarchy administrator
sent it. There are News administrators who won't remove newsgroups just
because the hierarchy administrator no longer recognizes it, so they
process newgroup messages only, not rmgroup, not checkgroups.

This is why it's the proponent's job to find potential users. It's up to
the user to request creation of the group he wants to post in from his
News administrator. The proponent CANNOT sit on his hands ASSUMING
checkgroups will be timely processed everywhere.

But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting discussion
going 'cuz they suck.

Am 23.09.2023 um 17:28:33 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> There are plenty of News administrator who do not process checkgroups
> at all, or don't process it around the time the hierarchy
> administrator sent it. There are News administrators who won't remove
> newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no longer
> recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not rmgroup,
> not checkgroups.

It is the "good tone" of the news server administrators to process the
massages of the hierarchy administrators.

Most server do it and these are the servers where the users are that
post interesting stuff.
This is the user base that is valuable.

> This is why it's the proponent's job to find potential users. It's up
> to the user to request creation of the group he wants to post in from
> his News administrator. The proponent CANNOT sit on his hands ASSUMING
> checkgroups will be timely processed everywhere.

Without assuming that, this administration would be useless. The the
groups could be created in alt.*.

Again, wise news server administrators care about the control messages
of hierarchy administrators.

> But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
> discussion going 'cuz they suck.

I don't agree with that.
In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some were
created instead. News server did run the control messages and have an
up to date group list.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 23.09.2023 um 17:28:33 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>There are plenty of News administrator who do not process checkgroups
>>at all, or don't process it around the time the hierarchy
>>administrator sent it. There are News administrators who won't remove
>>newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no longer
>>recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not rmgroup,
>>not checkgroups.

>It is the "good tone" of the news server administrators to process the
>massages of the hierarchy administrators.

Welcome to Usenet, Marco. Administration is decentralized. If a
hierarchy administrator issues a rmgroup that the News administrator
disagrees with, the News administrator has the final word.

A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of newsgroups
that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the site is well
run. The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites. All we
want from a well-run site is not allowing spam to originate, not to
commit abuse of Usenet, not to forge, and not to send articles in
violation of USEFOR.

>Most server do it and these are the servers where the users are that
>post interesting stuff.
>This is the user base that is valuable.

Ok. I'm not disagreeing that articles won't propogate unless another
site has the group created locally.

>>This is why it's the proponent's job to find potential users. It's up
>>to the user to request creation of the group he wants to post in from
>>his News administrator. The proponent CANNOT sit on his hands ASSUMING
>>checkgroups will be timely processed everywhere.

>Without assuming that, this administration would be useless. The the
>groups could be created in alt.*.

Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little
difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a group
started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if the group
isn't created locally, to request its creation.

It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going. His
job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.

>Again, wise news server administrators care about the control messages
>of hierarchy administrators.

Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what
difference does it make if he's created it locally?

Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?

>>But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
>>discussion going 'cuz they suck.

>I don't agree with that.

Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.

>In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some were
>created instead. News server did run the control messages and have an
>up to date group list.

What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed through to
make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place after the group
had been newgroups for two or three months?

Am 24.09.2023 um 05:08:51 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> >Am 23.09.2023 um 17:28:33 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>
> >>There are plenty of News administrator who do not process
> >>checkgroups at all, or don't process it around the time the
> >>hierarchy administrator sent it. There are News administrators who
> >>won't remove newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no
> >>longer recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not
> >>rmgroup, not checkgroups.
>
> >It is the "good tone" of the news server administrators to process
> >the massages of the hierarchy administrators.
>
> Welcome to Usenet, Marco. Administration is decentralized. If a
> hierarchy administrator issues a rmgroup that the News administrator
> disagrees with, the News administrator has the final word.

I know that, but most server operators follow the control messages.
These servers are the most relevant.

> A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of newsgroups
> that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the site is well
> run.

A well-run site processes the control messages. Most server will do it.

I care about those who do and not those who not process the control
messages because of laziness or other stupid arguments.
Most of these servers already closed in the past.

> The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.

It does because if they don't carry the group, they will refuse
articles and peers at least need one peer that has the group to make
article flow possible.

> All we want from a well-run site is not allowing spam to originate,
> not to commit abuse of Usenet, not to forge, and not to send articles
> in violation of USEFOR.

That is another topic.

> >Most server do it and these are the servers where the users are that
> >post interesting stuff.
> >This is the user base that is valuable.
>
> Ok. I'm not disagreeing that articles won't propogate unless another
> site has the group created locally.
>
> >>This is why it's the proponent's job to find potential users. It's
> >>up to the user to request creation of the group he wants to post in
> >>from his News administrator. The proponent CANNOT sit on his hands
> >>ASSUMING checkgroups will be timely processed everywhere.
>
> >Without assuming that, this administration would be useless. The the
> >groups could be created in alt.*.
>
> Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little
> difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
> administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a group
> started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if the group
> isn't created locally, to request its creation.

There is a huge difference.
alt if full of empty groups, big8 had cleanups and I advocate for
another one (I know you will disagree, but I don't care).

> It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going. His
> job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.

It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
messages. Most of the do and I care about them not about the
administrators who refuse to do so and continue to destroy Usenet.

I simply don't give a fuck about Google groups and others.

> >Again, wise news server administrators care about the control
> >messages of hierarchy administrators.
>
> Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what
> difference does it make if he's created it locally?

Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run the
control messages.
Please tell me which server won't process them, but care about their
users.

> Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?

I don't.

> >>But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
> >>discussion going 'cuz they suck.
>
> >I don't agree with that.
>
> Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.
>
> >In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some were
> >created instead. News server did run the control messages and have an
> >up to date group list.
>
> What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed through to
> make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place after the group
> had been newgroups for two or three months?

Think about comp.sys.raspberry-pi and comp.infosystems.gemini.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 24.09.2023 um 05:08:51 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>Am 23.09.2023 um 17:28:33 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>>>There are plenty of News administrator who do not process
>>>>checkgroups at all, or don't process it around the time the
>>>>hierarchy administrator sent it. There are News administrators who
>>>>won't remove newsgroups just because the hierarchy administrator no
>>>>longer recognizes it, so they process newgroup messages only, not
>>>>rmgroup, not checkgroups.
>>>It is the "good tone" of the news server administrators to process
>>>the massages of the hierarchy administrators.

>>Welcome to Usenet, Marco. Administration is decentralized. If a
>>hierarchy administrator issues a rmgroup that the News administrator
>>disagrees with, the News administrator has the final word.

>I know that, but most server operators follow the control messages.
>These servers are the most relevant.

Ok

>>A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of newsgroups
>>that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the site is well
>>run.

>A well-run site processes the control messages. Most server will do it.

My concern is that a News site doesn't cause trouble for the rest of the
network and TOSses users who would wreak havoc. Didn't we just agree to
this in the other discussion?

>I care about those who do and not those who not process the control
>messages because of laziness or other stupid arguments.
>Most of these servers already closed in the past.

Why? If you don't care for how one site is administered, then become a
user on a different site. You aren't affected.

It's also the proponent's job to encourage users to request creation of
the group locally if that's not the News administrator's policy about
accepting the hierarchy administrator's checkgroups.

>>The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.

I'm going to correct myself: If a site offers a newsgroup that has a
newgroup message or is listed in checkgroups for both, then it DOES
cause problems for the rest of the network if the group wasn't created
locally using the syntactically-correct name.

>It does because if they don't carry the group, they will refuse
>articles and peers at least need one peer that has the group to make
>article flow possible.

I really don't care about the problems of poorly connected News sites.

>>All we want from a well-run site is not allowing spam to originate,
>>not to commit abuse of Usenet, not to forge, and not to send articles
>>in violation of USEFOR.

>That is another topic.

Yes, it is another topic but let's agree that's what we both mean by
well-run News site, which is one that isn't causing trouble for the
network or allowing its users to commit Usenet abuse.

>>>. . ,

>>Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little
>>difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
>>administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a group
>>started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if the group
>>isn't created locally, to request its creation.

>There is a huge difference.
>alt if full of empty groups, big8 had cleanups and I advocate for
>another one (I know you will disagree, but I don't care).

The Big 8 is full of empty groups because of incompetence and bad
assumptions made by past hierarchy administrators. Skirv newgrouped a
dozen Big 8 groups redundant of alt.* groups, every one of which failed.

You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent proponent
MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether it's in an
administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion doesn't just appear
by magic.

>>It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going. His
>>job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.

>It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
>messages.

Dude, if you are a News administrator, you get to decide independently
how to run your server. Show the same courtesy to all the other News
administrators and stop lecturing them on how to run their sites and
what set of newsgroups they must offer their users.

Whether they process or reject control messages is their business and
not your business.

>Most of the do and I care about them not about the
>administrators who refuse to do so and continue to destroy Usenet.

Will you please stop chewing the scenery?

>I simply don't give a fuck about Google groups and others.

Ok

>>>Again, wise news server administrators care about the control
>>>messages of hierarchy administrators.

>>Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what
>>difference does it make if he's created it locally?

>Because it is the "good tone" to do so.

I've never heard that from anyone else.

>If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run the
>control messages.

Didn't I just say that?

>Please tell me which server won't process them, but care about their
>users.

There are institutional hierarchies on numerous News servers with a set
of newsgroups that came from the institution's own News server that
remain despite the fact that the institution's News site was taken off
line years ago. That's the most common example.

>>Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?

>I don't.

Just pointing out the obvious here that there's no real advantage to
administered hierarchies in terms of popularity or likelihood of
traffic. Most of those groups probably should have been started in
alt.*, and of course, some were.

>>>>But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
>>>>discussion going 'cuz they suck.

>>>I don't agree with that.

>>Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.

Who were you thinking of, Marco?

>>>In the German de.* hierarchy, many groups were deleted and some were
>>>created instead. News server did run the control messages and have an
>>>up to date group list.

>>What does that have to do with whether a proponent followed through to
>>make sure sustainable levels of discussion took place after the group
>>had been newgroups for two or three months?

>Think about comp.sys.raspberry-pi and comp.infosystems.gemini.

I vaguely recall that the Gemini proponent looked for users, but perhaps
I'm wrong, don't recall the other proponent lifting a finger.

You're still not addressing what I'd written.

Am 24.09.2023 um 06:58:13 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

> >>A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of
> >>newsgroups that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the
> >>site is well run.
>
> >A well-run site processes the control messages. Most server will do
> >it.
>
> My concern is that a News site doesn't cause trouble for the rest of
> the network and TOSses users who would wreak havoc. Didn't we just
> agree to this in the other discussion?
>
> >I care about those who do and not those who not process the control
> >messages because of laziness or other stupid arguments.
> >Most of these servers already closed in the past.
>
> Why? If you don't care for how one site is administered, then become a
> user on a different site. You aren't affected.

That's why I don't understand you talk about control messages so much,
if server operators refuse to do it, users MUST find another server to
use the groups.
If they want to, they will use another server.
If not, we don't need to care.

> It's also the proponent's job to encourage users to request creation
> of the group locally if that's not the News administrator's policy
> about accepting the hierarchy administrator's checkgroups.

I agree. And if the admin refuses, the user must look for another
server.
Rather easy. There are enough good ones that care bout control messages
and have the current group list.

> >>The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.
>
> I'm going to correct myself: If a site offers a newsgroup that has a
> newgroup message or is listed in checkgroups for both, then it DOES
> cause problems for the rest of the network if the group wasn't created
> locally using the syntactically-correct name.

Configuration problem. Other servers will refuse to take messages for
that group. A normal situation if servers don't carry certain
hierarchies, but receive messages from peers for that groups.
A new group isn't an additional problem.

Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might happen
isn't an argument.

> >It does because if they don't carry the group, they will refuse
> >articles and peers at least need one peer that has the group to make
> >article flow possible.
>
> I really don't care about the problems of poorly connected News sites.

I can agree with that, but such servers might exist and need to find
new peers. I think simply telling them about that should be enough.

> >>All we want from a well-run site is not allowing spam to originate,
> >>not to commit abuse of Usenet, not to forge, and not to send
> >>articles in violation of USEFOR.
>
> >That is another topic.
>
> Yes, it is another topic but let's agree that's what we both mean by
> well-run News site, which is one that isn't causing trouble for the
> network or allowing its users to commit Usenet abuse.

ACK.

> >>Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little
> >>difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
> >>administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a
> >>group started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if
> >>the group isn't created locally, to request its creation.
>
> >There is a huge difference.
> >alt if full of empty groups, big8 had cleanups and I advocate for
> >another one (I know you will disagree, but I don't care).
>
> The Big 8 is full of empty groups because of incompetence and bad
> assumptions made by past hierarchy administrators. Skirv newgrouped a
> dozen Big 8 groups redundant of alt.* groups, every one of which
> failed.

The advocate to delete them with an RfD.

> You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent proponent
> MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether it's in an
> administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion doesn't just
> appear by magic.

True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group has
been created.
It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain
months". People will look after they read it, see there is currently no
such group and leave.
Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can start
writing there.

> >>It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going.
> >>His job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.
>
> >It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
> >messages.
>
> Dude, if you are a News administrator, you get to decide independently
> how to run your server.

Technically, this is true. Although most of them want to take part in
the global Usenet and that means they should care about the hierarchy
administration's decisions. That is the reason that a global
distributed network will work for all participants.

Operators of routers also have full control over their device and could
say: "I will use 2a02::/16 for my network, regardless if it is assigned
to anybody else". Although the rest of the network won't care about
such people.
We should also not care about news server operators who refuse to run
control messages for administered hierarchies.

> Show the same courtesy to all the other News administrators and stop
> lecturing them on how to run their sites and what set of newsgroups
> they must offer their users.

I am sorry, but that is simply bullshit.
Taking part in a global network means that there must be a certain
level of cooperation to make that work.
For me that implies running control messages to make sure the current
group list is available.
For me not doing that is the same as not caring about spelling an
grammar because everybody can decide himself how to write.
Good communication doesn't work with such attitudes.

> Whether they process or reject control messages is their business and
> not your business.

True, it is their business, but if they refuse to do it, I refuse to
care about them. If simply don't give a fuck about them.
Whether or not I give that is my business, not their.

> >Most of the do and I care about them not about the
> >administrators who refuse to do so and continue to destroy Usenet.
>
> Will you please stop chewing the scenery?

Why should I?
Why do you think that my sentence is wrong?

> >I simply don't give a fuck about Google groups and others.
>
> Ok
>
> >>>Again, wise news server administrators care about the control
> >>>messages of hierarchy administrators.
>
> >>Why? If no user on his server wants to post to the group, what
> >>difference does it make if he's created it locally?
>
> >Because it is the "good tone" to do so.
>
> I've never heard that from anyone else.

It seems you don't understand (or don't wanna) what administrated
hierarchies mean and what purpose they have. If server operators don't
like the concept, why do they provide these hierarchies and not only
free.* and alt.* that are non-administrated and are intended that every
server operator decides on his own without central decisions?
These hierarchies are well for them, administered aren't.

> >If there is any valuable amount of users, they will demand to run the
> >control messages.
>
> Didn't I just say that?

Fo me it looks like you are against changes in big8 because there are
servers that won't process the control messages.

> >Please tell me which server won't process them, but care about their
> >users.
>
> There are institutional hierarchies on numerous News servers with a
> set of newsgroups that came from the institution's own News server
> that remain despite the fact that the institution's News site was
> taken off line years ago. That's the most common example.

Did they issue control messages to remove these groups?
Did they announced the end of these groups or the entire server to
their peers?

> >>Do you read all the humanities.* groups? Does anybody?
>
> >I don't.
>
> Just pointing out the obvious here that there's no real advantage to
> administered hierarchies in terms of popularity or likelihood of
> traffic. Most of those groups probably should have been started in
> alt.*, and of course, some were.

Really?
That is already full of junk and that makes is really, really hard to
find groups with content, even for new users.

> >>>>But most proponents don't follow through on actually getting
> >>>>discussion going 'cuz they suck.
>
> >>>I don't agree with that.
>
> >>Name a recent proponent who doesn't suck.
>
> Who were you thinking of, Marco?

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 24.09.2023 um 06:58:13 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

>>>>A News administrator offers Usenet to his users as a set of
>>>>newsgroups that he has chosen. It's nothing to do with whether the
>>>>site is well run.

>>>A well-run site processes the control messages. Most server will do
>>>it.

>>My concern is that a News site doesn't cause trouble for the rest of
>>the network and TOSses users who would wreak havoc. Didn't we just
>>agree to this in the other discussion?

>>>I care about those who do and not those who not process the control
>>>messages because of laziness or other stupid arguments.
>>>Most of these servers already closed in the past.

>>Why? If you don't care for how one site is administered, then become a
>>user on a different site. You aren't affected.

>That's why I don't understand you talk about control messages so much,
>if server operators refuse to do it, users MUST find another server to
>use the groups.
>If they want to, they will use another server.
>If not, we don't need to care.

I've been talking about what the PROPONENT'S JOB is in promoting use of
a new newsgroup. Users are told in the same article that, if they happen
to be users on a server that hasn't yet created the group locally to
request its creation from their News administrator.

The proponent simply adds a sentence or two with this information. If
the user is on a system that's acted upon the newgroup message (or
checkgroups in case of an administered hierarchy) then they just have to
subscribe and start posting on topic.

It's pretty much the same thing.

>>It's also the proponent's job to encourage users to request creation
>>of the group locally if that's not the News administrator's policy
>>about accepting the hierarchy administrator's checkgroups.

>I agree. And if the admin refuses, the user must look for another
>server.

Right. We agree. It would be highly unusual that a News administrator
would refuse to act upon a user request to create a newsgroup.

I'm just trying to get you to appreciate that having an enthusiastic
proponent is key to getting a group going and his job hasn't finished
till the group is going. There's long been this notion that the ONLY
thing that gets the group going is the issuance of the newgroup message
and that simply isn't true. It's why so many newsgroups failed right
from the start.

>Rather easy. There are enough good ones that care bout control messages
>and have the current group list.

Ok

>>>>The set of newsgroups offered doesn't affect other sites.

>>I'm going to correct myself: If a site offers a newsgroup that has a
>>newgroup message or is listed in checkgroups for both, then it DOES
>>cause problems for the rest of the network if the group wasn't created
>>locally using the syntactically-correct name.

>Configuration problem.

No, it's not. It's policy. We've had servers set up that wanted to offer
the most Usenet groups to users as a matter of self promotion, and
looked for other newsgroup names on the Newsgroups header in a crosspost
on the user's article. If the group wasn't created locally, it got
created without processing the newgroup message. Often the group really
had been newgrouped but the user failed to use the syntactically correct
name. It wasn't deliberate but fat fingering.

>Other servers will refuse to take messages for that group.

If it's a crosspost, the usual policy is to accept the article (not
message) if at least one group in the crosspost is created locally.
There are servers that don't allow a crossposted article to be injected
if not all newsgroups had been created locally to avoid fat fingering or
scenarios in which the article is crossposted to a newsgroup that's in a
local hierarchy (nondistributed) of a foreign News site. Such newsgroups
aren't Usenet newsgroups.

>A normal situation if servers don't carry certain hierarchies, but
>receive messages from peers for that groups.

Yes, that can happen, especially with a crosspost.

>A new group isn't an additional problem.

If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's not a
problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally because of such
a policy of creating everything and its name isn't syntactially correct,
it is a problem for the network.

>Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might happen
>isn't an argument.

I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm
saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set of
Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on what a
user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the newgroup
message and processing that.

>>>. . .

>>>>Marco, you truly go out of your way to miss my point. There's little
>>>>difference these days between alt.* and the Big 8 or another
>>>>administered hierarchy about how much effort goes into getting a
>>>>group started. You have to get users interested in posting and, if
>>>>the group isn't created locally, to request its creation.

>>>There is a huge difference.
>>>alt if full of empty groups, big8 had cleanups and I advocate for
>>>another one (I know you will disagree, but I don't care).

>>The Big 8 is full of empty groups because of incompetence and bad
>>assumptions made by past hierarchy administrators. Skirv newgrouped a
>>dozen Big 8 groups redundant of alt.* groups, every one of which
>>failed.

>The advocate to delete them with an RfD.

Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of solving
the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I would have
said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In the Big 8,
reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in power by the
hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do with whether
discussion takes place.

In the grand scheme of things, let's rank who is important.

1) The News administrator

2) The user, posting something interesting and on topic

3) The proponent

4) The hierarchy administrator

Number 4 is way way down there in importance. Because of the
decentralized nature of Usenet, they are far less important than the
other two. Because sending a newgroup message (or checkgroups in the
case of an administered hierarchy) has nothing to do with whether a
group will succeed or fail, they are far less important than proponents.

A new group fails because the proponent sat on his hands. Numerous new
groups were started for discussion of a topic not already taking place
on Usenet. Without on-topic interesting discussion, the group fails.

The mere act of issuing a control message is not a known method of
getting any interesting on topic discussion started.

>>You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent proponent
>>MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether it's in an
>>administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion doesn't just
>>appear by magic.

>True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group has
>been created.

Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will do.

>It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain
>months". People will look after they read it, see there is currently no
>such group and leave.

I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm talking
about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent. Before the
message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the topic so he
knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well known for
discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good proponent.

>Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can start
>writing there.

Yes.

Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD phase
is largely useless.

>>>>It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going.
>>>>His job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.

>>>It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
>>>messages.

>>Dude, if you are a News administrator, you get to decide independently
>>how to run your server.

>Technically, this is true.

In actual reality, both de jure and de facto, this is true.

>Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
>that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's
>decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network will
>work for all participants.

Am 24.09.2023 um 15:12:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
> poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's not
> a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally because of
> such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't syntactially
> correct, it is a problem for the network.

I don't know a server with such a policy. As you said there is a real
risk that users create just everything - either intended or by mistakes.

> >Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might happen
> >isn't an argument.
>
> I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm
> saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set of
> Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on
> what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the
> newgroup message and processing that.

Agree, I didn't saw that risk, but I assume well-manages sites don't
have such a feature enabled.

> Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of solving
> the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I would have
> said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In the Big 8,
> reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in power by the
> hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do with whether
> discussion takes place.

Be aware that sometimes people check group lists for interesting
groups. If that list is too full of unused groups, it is harder to
find active ones.

> In the grand scheme of things, let's rank who is important.
>
> 1) The News administrator
>
> 2) The user, posting something interesting and on topic
>
> 3) The proponent
>
> 4) The hierarchy administrator
>
> Number 4 is way way down there in importance. Because of the
> decentralized nature of Usenet, they are far less important than the
> other two. Because sending a newgroup message (or checkgroups in the
> case of an administered hierarchy) has nothing to do with whether a
> group will succeed or fail, they are far less important than
> proponents.

I agree with that, but they are an integral part of it.

> A new group fails because the proponent sat on his hands. Numerous new
> groups were started for discussion of a topic not already taking place
> on Usenet. Without on-topic interesting discussion, the group fails.
>
> The mere act of issuing a control message is not a known method of
> getting any interesting on topic discussion started.

The creation will be announced at certain places, some people read
there and might use the new group.

Although, that is not a insurance for that.

> >>You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
> >>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether
> >>it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion
> >>doesn't just appear by magic.
>
> >True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group
> >has been created.
>
> Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
> great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will do.

He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't take
the words of people serious if they are quoted.

> >It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain
> >months". People will look after they read it, see there is currently
> >no such group and leave.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
> talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
> Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
> topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
> known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good
> proponent.

I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating the
discussion about it, not about the topic itself.

> >Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can start
> >writing there.
>
> Yes.
>
> Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD
> phase is largely useless.

Because of what?
If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.

> >>>>It's not the hierarchy administrator's job to get the group going.
> >>>>His job ends with sending the newgroup and checkgroups.
>
> >>>It is the job of the server administrators to run these control
> >>>messages.
>
> >>Dude, if you are a News administrator, you get to decide
> >>independently how to run your server.
>
> >Technically, this is true.
>
> In actual reality, both de jure and de facto, this is true.
>
> >Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
> >that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's
> >decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network will
> >work for all participants.
>
> Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision because
> it isn't very important.

Please stop repeating and repeating that bullshit again.
The concept of administered hierarchies is, that the administrations
decides certain things and then all servers apply it.

I know that there is no law that forces them and I don't want it, but
it is the best practice and courteous to do that.
Those administrators who don't like administrated hierarchies should
look at alt.*, that is there hierarchy for those who don't want to have
an external administration.

I compare that with spelling and grammar. There is no law that enforces
the usage, but is is common to do it and needed for a proper
communication.

> Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
> Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
> a user's request that a group be created locally.

That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies and
treated as bad behavior by most users.

> The only thing that's important is creating a group with a
> syntactically correct name. For that the News administrator consults
> or literally processes the newgroup message.
>
> Interesting on topic discussion in a set of newsgroups offered by a
> News administrator to his users is what's important. Really nothing
> else is important.

Providing the entire hierarchy has the possibility that people are able
to find groups to post.

Without providing them, people can't find and therefore cannot post.

If all server admins argumented like that, almost no new groups could
be created at all, because if nobody creates them first and shows users
that it exists, nobody will post there.

> >We should also not care about news server operators who refuse to run
> >control messages for administered hierarchies.
>
> I never did care!

Then why do you stick on it that much?

> It doesn't cause harm to the network!

It makes it impossible that users can benefit from changes in the
hierarchy.

> It's nobody else's business.

What is your problem with that?
For me it looks like you don't want that people criticize that.

> >>Show the same courtesy to all the other News administrators and stop
> >>lecturing them on how to run their sites and what set of newsgroups
> >>they must offer their users.
>
> >I am sorry, but that is simply bullshit.
>
> It's literally not your business.

It seems you don't have any arguments anymore.

> >Taking part in a global network means that there must be a certain
> >level of cooperation to make that work.
>
> The minimum required cooperation is creating a newsgroup locally with
> the syntactically correct name to make it possible to effectively
> distribute articles posted to the group.
>
> >For me that implies running control messages to make sure the current
> >group list is available.
> >For me not doing that is the same as not caring about spelling an
> >grammar because everybody can decide himself how to write.
> >Good communication doesn't work with such attitudes.
>
> How exactly has communication taken place within a newsgroup that
> isn't being read locally?

It seems your are either unable to understand or not willing:
If a group doesn't exist, nobody can find nor read it.
Is it that hard to understand?

> It's like conflating the print run of a magazine with the number of
> copies sold to subscribers or purchasers at news stands. If the copy
> was printed but not read, communication hasn't taken place. The copy
> goes to the landfill.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 24.09.2023 um 15:12:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
>>poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's not
>>a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally because of
>>such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't syntactially
>>correct, it is a problem for the network.

>I don't know a server with such a policy. As you said there is a real
>risk that users create just everything - either intended or by mistakes.

There were commercial servers that did that, plus Chris Caputo.

>>>Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might happen
>>>isn't an argument.

>>I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm
>>saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set of
>>Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on
>>what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the
>>newgroup message and processing that.

>Agree, I didn't saw that risk, but I assume well-manages sites don't
>have such a feature enabled.

I'm sure it's NOT a feature of INN! But commercial sites likely wrote
their own servers.

>>Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of solving
>>the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I would have
>>said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In the Big 8,
>>reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in power by the
>>hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do with whether
>>discussion takes place.

>Be aware that sometimes people check group lists for interesting
>groups. If that list is too full of unused groups, it is harder to
>find active ones.

How does one do that without performing a key word search? One is also
better off checking the newsgroups file rather than the active file as
it offers more key words.

>>>>. . .

>>>>You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
>>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP whether
>>>>it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy. Discussion
>>>>doesn't just appear by magic.

>>>True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group
>>>has been created.

>>Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
>>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will do.

>He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't take
>the words of people serious if they are quoted.

On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they actually
do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great! Then it stands
a better chance of not failing.

>>>It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain
>>>months". People will look after they read it, see there is currently
>>>no such group and leave.

>>I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
>>talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
>>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
>>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
>>known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good
>>proponent.

>I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating the
>discussion about it, not about the topic itself.

If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the topic,
why would you pay him any mind?

>>>Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can start
>>>writing there.

>>Yes.

>>Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD
>>phase is largely useless.

>Because of what?
>If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.

Because we already know that they HAVEN'T been discussing the topic on
Usenet. If they've had a history of posting about the topic, then it's
possible to count the number of articles that have been posted
discussing the topic.

>>>>>>. . .

>>>Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
>>>that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's
>>>decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network will
>>>work for all participants.

>>Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision because
>>it isn't very important.

>Please stop repeating and repeating that bullshit again.
>The concept of administered hierarchies is, that the administrations
>decides certain things and then all servers apply it.

Interesting on topic discussion transcends everything else in an
interactive medium of communication.

>I know that there is no law that forces them and I don't want it, but
>it is the best practice and courteous to do that.
>Those administrators who don't like administrated hierarchies should
>look at alt.*, that is there hierarchy for those who don't want to have
>an external administration.

What makes you think they don't like a particular hierarchy? There's
nothing wrong with creating a group on behalf of a user.

>. . .

>>Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
>>Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
>>a user's request that a group be created locally.

>That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies and
>treated as bad behavior by most users.

I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used to
be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process
rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.

It's actually NOT against the concept of hierarchy administration given
that Usenet is decentralized. For the 27th time, the News administrator
runs Usenet, not the hierarchy administrator. That means the News
administrator and not the hierarchy administrator decides what set of
newsgroups in that hierarchy to offer to his users. All we want the News
administrator to do is create the group with the syntactically correct
name. If he offers groups within the hierchy not recognized by the
hierarchy administrator, he gets to do that. Why? Because he's in
charge.

>>The only thing that's important is creating a group with a
>>syntactically correct name. For that the News administrator consults
>>or literally processes the newgroup message.

>>Interesting on topic discussion in a set of newsgroups offered by a
>>News administrator to his users is what's important. Really nothing
>>else is important.

>Providing the entire hierarchy has the possibility that people are able
>to find groups to post.

>Without providing them, people can't find and therefore cannot post.

I use the sample newsgroups file at ftp.isc.org to search, not the local
newsgroups file. But you're right that the user what find something
in the local active or newsgroups file that's not there.

>If all server admins argumented like that, almost no new groups could
>be created at all, because if nobody creates them first and shows users
>that it exists, nobody will post there.

Totally and absurdly wrong. This is why the proponent's job is so
critical, to overcome ignorance and apathy. He mentions the group name
in an article. The user then requests its creation if not yet created
locally, then posts to it.

Plenty of alt.* groups have good propagation despite the best practice
of NOT creating an alt.* group lacking a user request.

>>>. . .

>>It doesn't cause harm to the network!

>It makes it impossible that users can benefit from changes in the
>hierarchy.

You're still wrong. This is why the proponent's job is key.

>>It's nobody else's business.

>What is your problem with that?

I don't have a problem. You are simply wrong. A News administrator on a
foreign network isn't your employee. You don't tell him how to offer
Usenet to his users.

That's the way Usenet works.

>For me it looks like you don't want that people criticize that.

It's pointless to do so. You really refuse to grasp the concept of
decentralized administration of Usenet, which really is one of its
best features despite what you think.

In other followups you've claimed that you understand that the hierarchy
administrator isn't in charge of Usenet. In this followup, you don't
understand it, not at all.

>>>>. . .

>It seems you don't have any arguments anymore.

You're right. You have always made it difficult for someone else to get
a point across to do. At some point, I will get completely fed up with
talking to you.

Am 24.09.2023 um 18:47:31 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> >Am 24.09.2023 um 15:12:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>
> >>If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
> >>poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's
> >>not a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally
> >>because of such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't
> >>syntactially correct, it is a problem for the network.
>
> >I don't know a server with such a policy. As you said there is a real
> >risk that users create just everything - either intended or by
> >mistakes.
>
> There were commercial servers that did that, plus Chris Caputo.

Are these still there?
Are these relevant to the text usenet?

Who is Chris Caputo?

> >>>Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might
> >>>happen isn't an argument.
>
> >>I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm
> >>saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set
> >>of Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on
> >>what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the
> >>newgroup message and processing that.
>
> >Agree, I didn't saw that risk, but I assume well-manages sites don't
> >have such a feature enabled.
>
> I'm sure it's NOT a feature of INN! But commercial sites likely wrote
> their own servers.

Then it is their problem.

> >>Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of
> >>solving the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I
> >>would have said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In
> >>the Big 8, reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in
> >>power by the hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do
> >>with whether discussion takes place.
>
> >Be aware that sometimes people check group lists for interesting
> >groups. If that list is too full of unused groups, it is harder to
> >find active ones.
>
> How does one do that without performing a key word search?

Simply look at the group list is how normal users find groups.

> >>>>You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
> >>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP
> >>>>whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy.
> >>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.
>
> >>>True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group
> >>>has been created.
>
> >>Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
> >>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will
> >>do.
>
> >He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't take
> >the words of people serious if they are quoted.
>
> On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they actually
> do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great! Then it
> stands a better chance of not failing.

Please stay on topic. You complained about my sentence that I would
"assure" that he will advertise the group.

> >>>It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain
> >>>months". People will look after they read it, see there is
> >>>currently no such group and leave.
>
> >>I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
> >>talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
> >>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
> >>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
> >>known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good
> >>proponent.
>
> >I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating
> >the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.
>
> If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
> topic, why would you pay him any mind?

He might know other people who want to write in that group.

> >>>Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can
> >>>start writing there.
>
> >>Yes.
>
> >>Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD
> >>phase is largely useless.
>
> >Because of what?
> >If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.
>
> Because we already know that they HAVEN'T been discussing the topic on
> Usenet. If they've had a history of posting about the topic, then it's
> possible to count the number of articles that have been posted
> discussing the topic.

Some new users joined, how do you know what they are interested in?

> >>>Although most of them want to take part in the global Usenet and
> >>>that means they should care about the hierarchy administration's
> >>>decisions. That is the reason that a global distributed network
> >>>will work for all participants.
>
> >>Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision
> >>because it isn't very important.
>
> >Please stop repeating and repeating that bullshit again.
> >The concept of administered hierarchies is, that the administrations
> >decides certain things and then all servers apply it.
>
> Interesting on topic discussion transcends everything else in an
> interactive medium of communication.
>
> >I know that there is no law that forces them and I don't want it, but
> >it is the best practice and courteous to do that.
> >Those administrators who don't like administrated hierarchies should
> >look at alt.*, that is there hierarchy for those who don't want to
> >have an external administration.
>
> What makes you think they don't like a particular hierarchy? There's
> nothing wrong with creating a group on behalf of a user.

You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered
hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups as
he likes.
Those administrators are a niche, why is that so important for you?

> >>Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
> >>Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
> >>a user's request that a group be created locally.
>
> >That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies and
> >treated as bad behavior by most users.
>
> I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used to
> be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process
> rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.

For what reason?
Posting there, so almost nobody will read it?

> It's actually NOT against the concept of hierarchy administration
> given that Usenet is decentralized.

You don't seem to understand that the idea of the centrally
administered hierarchies is that all news servers carry it in the way
the central administration decided.
You don't need to like it, but that is the common sense and all good
server I know do that.

> For the 27th time, the News administrator runs Usenet, not the
> hierarchy administrator.

I understand that, but you don't wanna accept that the concept of
administered hierarchies is NOT that every server operator does what he
thinks is good.
That would result in a big mess, like alt.*.

> That means the News administrator and not the hierarchy administrator
> decides what set of newsgroups in that hierarchy to offer to his
> users.

Technically this is true, but in most cases they provide the list that
is being decided at the administration, whether you like it or not.
Simply accept the facts.

> All we want the News administrator to do is create the group
> with the syntactically correct name.

For that the control messages from the central administration exist.
Why don't use them?

> If he offers groups within the hierchy not recognized by the
> hierarchy administrator, he gets to do that. Why? Because he's in
> charge.

He can also drill a hole in the servers hard disk. Nobody can or want
to prevent that, but it stays a stupid idea, like creating groups in
administered hierarchies by their own.
It will simply result in a big mess.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 24.09.2023 um 18:47:31 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>Am 24.09.2023 um 15:12:14 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>>>If somebody has checked the syntactically correct name -- both the
>>>>poster AND the News administrator creating it locally -- no, it's
>>>>not a problem at all. But if a newsgroup gets created locally
>>>>because of such a policy of creating everything and its name isn't
>>>>syntactially correct, it is a problem for the network.

>>>I don't know a server with such a policy. As you said there is a real
>>>risk that users create just everything - either intended or by
>>>mistakes.

>>There were commercial servers that did that, plus Chris Caputo.

>Are these still there?

I don't know.

>Are these relevant to the text usenet?

Yes

>Who is Chris Caputo?

Altopia. His presentation of Usenet was, shall we say, unique.

>>>>>Not creating it because of local configuration mistakes might
>>>>>happen isn't an argument.

>>>>I never said "because of local configuration mistakes". You did. I'm
>>>>saying it was policy on certain News sites to offer "a complete set
>>>>of Usenet groups to their users" by creating groups locally based on
>>>>what a user put on the Newsgroups header in lieu of finding the
>>>>newgroup message and processing that.

>>>Agree, I didn't saw that risk, but I assume well-manages sites don't
>>>have such a feature enabled.

>>I'm sure it's NOT a feature of INN! But commercial sites likely wrote
>>their own servers.

>Then it is their problem.

Marco, you really don't appreciate the Usenet maxim His server, his
rules. You don't get to define anything and everything you disagree with
as a "problem" that isn't a problem for the network.

>>>>Marco, if I believed that cleaning up checkgroups was a way of
>>>>solving the problem of lack of on-topic discussion taking place, I
>>>>would have said so. Instead, it's well known to be irrelevant. In
>>>>the Big 8, reorganizations have been busy work or an exercise in
>>>>power by the hierarchy administrator. None of it has anything to do
>>>>with whether discussion takes place.

>>>Be aware that sometimes people check group lists for interesting
>>>groups. If that list is too full of unused groups, it is harder to
>>>find active ones.

>>How does one do that without performing a key word search?

>Simply look at the group list is how normal users find groups.

In a regional hierarchy, perhaps. In the Big 8 or alt.*, that's ridiculous.
There are way too many newsgroups.

Anybody can perform a key word search to find newsgroups to subscribe to.

>>>>>>You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
>>>>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP
>>>>>>whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy.
>>>>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.

>>>>>True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the group
>>>>>has been created.

>>>>Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
>>>>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will
>>>>do.

>>>He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't take
>>>the words of people serious if they are quoted.

>>On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they actually
>>do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great! Then it
>>stands a better chance of not failing.

>Please stay on topic. You complained about my sentence that I would
>"assure" that he will advertise the group.

That's literally the topic, that you cannot make a promise on behalf of
somebody else.

>>>>>It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in certain
>>>>>months". People will look after they read it, see there is
>>>>>currently no such group and leave.

>>>>I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
>>>>talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
>>>>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
>>>>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
>>>>known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good
>>>>proponent.

>>>I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating
>>>the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.

>>If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
>>topic, why would you pay him any mind?

>He might know other people who want to write in that group.

It's a matter of principle. Someone who might make a good proponent
starts off by demonstrating that he wants to discuss the topic on Usenet
by... discussing the topic on Usenet. That the hypothetical proponent
has never done so is a very bad sign. That no one discussing the topic
even wants to be the proponent is a huge hint that the newsgroup
proposed by the hypothetical proponent is unnecessary.

>>>>>Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can
>>>>>start writing there.

>>>>Yes.

>>>>Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during RFD
>>>>phase is largely useless.

>>>Because of what?
>>>If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.

>>Because we already know that they HAVEN'T been discussing the topic on
>>Usenet. If they've had a history of posting about the topic, then it's
>>possible to count the number of articles that have been posted
>>discussing the topic.

>Some new users joined, how do you know what they are interested in?

It's not difficult to understand my point. We know who is discussing a
topic on Usenet. Everything else is irrelevant. Interest in discussing a
topic is demonstrated by... discussing the topic. There's no other valid
way of demonstrating interest.

Handwaiving -- I just KNOW it will work! -- invariably leads to a failed
newsgroup.

>>. . .

>You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered
>hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
>all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups as
>he likes.

No. That's absolutely untrue.

>Those administrators are a niche, why is that so important for you?

Because they aren't "niche". Not every News server is for the public. Some
News servers are at companies for their own employees. Let's say the
employer knows that newsgroups related to science and techology exist and
that there can be worthwhile discussion in them. Let's say the employer
believes that his employees shouldn't be reading other newsgroups at the
office. He offers a News server with newsgroups that are limited to Usenet
groups relevant to their business in Big 8, alt.*, and foreign languages
if a few employees speak those languages. He offers no newsgroups about
entertainment or other topics.

>>>>Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
>>>>Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act upon
>>>>a user's request that a group be created locally.

>>>That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies and
>>>treated as bad behavior by most users.

>>I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used to
>>be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process
>>rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.

>For what reason?
>Posting there, so almost nobody will read it?

Not everybody agrees with a hierarchy administrator's rmgrouping.

>>It's actually NOT against the concept of hierarchy administration
>>given that Usenet is decentralized.

>You don't seem to understand that the idea of the centrally
>administered hierarchies is that all news servers carry it in the way
>the central administration decided.

Now you are babbling and deliberately misusing terms. Hierarchy
administration is absolutely not CENTRAL administration. A hierarchy
administrator literally administers nothing. He has a checkgroups that
may get amended from time to time.

The title is a misnomer.

>You don't need to like it, but that is the common sense and all good
>server I know do that.

Am 24.09.2023 um 21:06:04 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> Marco, you really don't appreciate the Usenet maxim His server, his
> rules.

That is true, but valuable servers don't follow that in a way like
Google does by not processing control message on principle.

> You don't get to define anything and everything you disagree
> with as a "problem" that isn't a problem for the network.

It simply IS a problem to have an outdated group list of an hierarchy,
simply have a look at Google groups.
People can't discuss in certain groups there.

> >Simply look at the group list is how normal users find groups.
>
> In a regional hierarchy, perhaps. In the Big 8 or alt.*, that's
> ridiculous. There are way too many newsgroups.

I did find the groups I read that way. Because I can skip entire
hierarchies I am not interested in.
That's also why I advocate to delete all the empty groups.

> >>>>>>You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
> >>>>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP
> >>>>>>whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy.
> >>>>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.
>
> >>>>>True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the
> >>>>>group has been created.
>
> >>>>Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
> >>>>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will
> >>>>do.
>
> >>>He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't
> >>>take the words of people serious if they are quoted.
>
> >>On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they
> >>actually do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great!
> >>Then it stands a better chance of not failing.
>
> >Please stay on topic. You complained about my sentence that I would
> >"assure" that he will advertise the group.
>
> That's literally the topic, that you cannot make a promise on behalf
> of somebody else.

That is something you are saying, not me. I simply said that he wrote
that he will advocate that.
I've never promised that he will do that in all cases and I assure
that.

> >>>>>It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in
> >>>>>certain months". People will look after they read it, see there
> >>>>>is currently no such group and leave.
>
> >>>>I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
> >>>>talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
> >>>>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
> >>>>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
> >>>>known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good
> >>>>proponent.
>
> >>>I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating
> >>>the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.
>
> >>If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
> >>topic, why would you pay him any mind?
>
> >He might know other people who want to write in that group.
>
> It's a matter of principle. Someone who might make a good proponent
> starts off by demonstrating that he wants to discuss the topic on
> Usenet by... discussing the topic on Usenet.

You see the egg-chicken problem?

> That the hypothetical proponent has never done so is a very bad sign.
> That no one discussing the topic even wants to be the proponent is a
> huge hint that the newsgroup proposed by the hypothetical proponent is
> unnecessary.

That is you opinion about that.

> >>>>>Advocating must take place when the group exists and people can
> >>>>>start writing there.
>
> >>>>Yes.
>
> >>>>Discussion along the lines of "Yes! I'll read the group!" during
> >>>>RFD phase is largely useless.
>
> >>>Because of what?
> >>>If nobody reads it, it is not worth posting.
>
> >>Because we already know that they HAVEN'T been discussing the topic
> >>on Usenet. If they've had a history of posting about the topic,
> >>then it's possible to count the number of articles that have been
> >>posted discussing the topic.
>
> >Some new users joined, how do you know what they are interested in?
>
> It's not difficult to understand my point. We know who is discussing a
> topic on Usenet. Everything else is irrelevant. Interest in
> discussing a topic is demonstrated by... discussing the topic.

That is not possible without a place to do that.

> Handwaiving -- I just KNOW it will work! -- invariably leads to a
> failed newsgroup.

I assume that might not be a problem for you, because empty groups are
not a problem in any way. I advocate in deleting them, so if
comp.lang.go fails, it could simply be deleted in 2 years if it really
fails.

> >You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered
> >hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
> >all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups
> >as he likes.
>
> No. That's absolutely untrue.

Then explain me the concept. For me it looks like you're having
huge trouble in distinguishing intentional anarchy (alt.*) and
administered hierarchies where a central board decides what should be
done.

If your assumption would apply to most operators, the big 8 board and
dana could simply close, because every operators does what he thinks
is right and doesn't care about the big 8 decisions anyway.

The reality show that this is simply not the case for most servers.

> >Those administrators are a niche, why is that so important for you?
>
> Because they aren't "niche". Not every News server is for the public.

Most of them are niche server, even if you don't like that fact.
Usenet in companies and universities is almost over, sadly.

> Some News servers are at companies for their own employees. Let's say
> the employer knows that newsgroups related to science and techology
> exist and that there can be worthwhile discussion in them. Let's say
> the employer believes that his employees shouldn't be reading other
> newsgroups at the office. He offers a News server with newsgroups
> that are limited to Usenet groups relevant to their business in Big
> 8, alt.*, and foreign languages if a few employees speak those
> languages. He offers no newsgroups about entertainment or other
> topics.

That is fine for their case, but that is a special case and not the
default of news servers.
And if they want to communicate, they have to create/delete the groups
decided by the hierarchy admins, but only for the topics they are
interested in providing.

> >>>>Instead, a News administrator should care about offering a set of
> >>>>Usenet newsgroups that his own users would benefit from and act
> >>>>upon a user's request that a group be created locally.
>
> >>>That is entirely against the concept of administrated hierarchies
> >>>and treated as bad behavior by most users.
>
> >>I don't agree. There are users who object to rmgroups -- there used
> >>to be quite a few -- who might look for a server that won't process
> >>rmgroups and checkgroups for that reason.
>
> >For what reason?
> >Posting there, so almost nobody will read it?
>
> Not everybody agrees with a hierarchy administrator's rmgrouping.

I know that, but for what purpose?
People can't reasonable discuss there because other admins remove the
groups from their servers.
You are talking about niche situations and want to make them the
default.

> >>It's actually NOT against the concept of hierarchy administration
> >>given that Usenet is decentralized.
>
> >You don't seem to understand that the idea of the centrally
> >administered hierarchies is that all news servers carry it in the way
> >the central administration decided.
>
> Now you are babbling and deliberately misusing terms. Hierarchy
> administration is absolutely not CENTRAL administration. A hierarchy
> administrator literally administers nothing.

In fact, they do, because other admins listen to them.
I know you don't agree with that, but I don't care.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:

[...]

> > >>Nobody should care about a hierarchy administrator's decision
> > >>because it isn't very important.
> >
> > >Please stop repeating and repeating that bullshit again.
> > >The concept of administered hierarchies is, that the administrations
> > >decides certain things and then all servers apply it.
> >
> > Interesting on topic discussion transcends everything else in an
> > interactive medium of communication.
> >
> > >I know that there is no law that forces them and I don't want it, but
> > >it is the best practice and courteous to do that.
> > >Those administrators who don't like administrated hierarchies should
> > >look at alt.*, that is there hierarchy for those who don't want to
> > >have an external administration.
> >
> > What makes you think they don't like a particular hierarchy? There's
> > nothing wrong with creating a group on behalf of a user.
>
> You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered
> hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
> all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups as
> he likes.
> Those administrators are a niche, why is that so important for you?

[...]

It is well known that German Usenetters take their newsgroups very
seriously, even to the point of frowning on "noms de net".
It seems to me that the answer to all of Usenet's travails might be to
simply turn over all administrative duties to our German friends; they
are reputedly expert at imposing order upon chaos.

--
\|/
(((Ï))) - Mr Ön!on
When we shake the ketchup bottle
At first none comes and then a lot'll.

Thus spake onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on)
> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
> [...]
> It is well known that German Usenetters take their newsgroups very
> seriously, even to the point of frowning on "noms de net".

I can see an abuse complaint coming my way from an aspiring apprentice
netKKKop already.

> It seems to me that the answer to all of Usenet's travails might be to
> simply turn over all administrative duties to our German friends; they
> are reputedly expert at imposing order upon chaos.

or expert at creating chaos to impose order.

--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
http://www.eternal-september.org

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 24.09.2023 um 21:06:04 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

Marco, I'm deleting significant portions of the quote due to
repetitiveness and I'm just bored with this discussion. It's gone
nowhere.

>>. . .

>>>Simply look at the group list is how normal users find groups.

>>In a regional hierarchy, perhaps. In the Big 8 or alt.*, that's
>>ridiculous. There are way too many newsgroups.

>I did find the groups I read that way. Because I can skip entire
>hierarchies I am not interested in.
>That's also why I advocate to delete all the empty groups.

I advocate key word searching because that's what a rational user would
do given a very long list.

>>>>>>>>You're still ignoring me. At a group's startup, a competent
>>>>>>>>proponent MUST PERFORM THE SAME WORK TO PUBLICIZE THE GROUP
>>>>>>>>whether it's in an administered or unadministered hierarchy.
>>>>>>>>Discussion doesn't just appear by magic.

>>>>>>>True, but rek2 did that and will continue to do it after the
>>>>>>>group has been created.

>>>>>>Usenet doesn't require your assurances, Marco. If he does his job,
>>>>>>great! You cannot make any promises about what somebody else will
>>>>>>do.

>>>>>He told that in the discussions. For me it looks like you don't
>>>>>take the words of people serious if they are quoted.

>>>>On Usenet, what people promise to do is irrelevant. What they
>>>>actually do is what's important. If he promotes the group, great!
>>>>Then it stands a better chance of not failing.

>>>Please stay on topic. You complained about my sentence that I would
>>>"assure" that he will advertise the group.

>>That's literally the topic, that you cannot make a promise on behalf
>>of somebody else.

>That is something you are saying, not me. I simply said that he wrote
>that he will advocate that.

>I've never promised that he will do that in all cases and I assure
>that.

You wrote that after I called you out on making a promise on his behalf.
You backpedalled.

His promise is similarly irrelevant. All that's important is what he
actually does on Usenet.

>>>>>>>It makes no sense in telling "there might be a new group in
>>>>>>>certain months". People will look after they read it, see there
>>>>>>>is currently no such group and leave.

>>>>>>I don't know what you are talking about here. The promotion I'm
>>>>>>talking about must take place AFTER the newgroup message was sent.
>>>>>>Before the message was sent, the proponent finds discussion of the
>>>>>>topic so he knows where to promote it. A proponent who isn't well
>>>>>>known for discussing the topic on Usenet is unlikely to be a good
>>>>>>proponent.

>>>>>I don't agree with that. The proponent is responsible for creating
>>>>>the discussion about it, not about the topic itself.

>>>>If you've never read anything that the guy has written about the
>>>>topic, why would you pay him any mind?

>>>He might know other people who want to write in that group.

>>It's a matter of principle. Someone who might make a good proponent
>>starts off by demonstrating that he wants to discuss the topic on
>>Usenet by... discussing the topic on Usenet.

>You see the egg-chicken problem?

You are being irrational. There isn't one. Even you pointed out the
miscellaneous newsgroup elsewhere in this nonsensical discussion.

Usenet is a mature medium of communication with 10s of thousands of
newsgroups in which to post. There is ALWAYS a group in which to post in
which the article would be on topic. ALWAYS. Use of a broader newsgroup
is a rational way in which to communicate. Every narrower topic doesn't
require a separate newsgroup.

I've pointed this out to you multiple times in the thread. You actually
know this. Why are you trolling me, knowing that your argument is bad?

>>That the hypothetical proponent has never done so is a very bad sign.
>>That no one discussing the topic even wants to be the proponent is a
>>huge hint that the newsgroup proposed by the hypothetical proponent is
>>unnecessary.

>That is you opinion about that.

It is an opinion. Very long experience observing proponents gives me some
expertise in the matter. That it's impossible for you to provide a long
list of proponents unknown for discussion the topic, who justified their
proposals with handwaiving arguments, whose groups then DIDN'T end up
failing, should be a huge hint to you that the reason you didn't provide
a counter-argument is that there isn't one to make.

>>>. . .

>>It's not difficult to understand my point. We know who is discussing a
>>topic on Usenet. Everything else is irrelevant. Interest in
>>discussing a topic is demonstrated by... discussing the topic.

>That is not possible without a place to do that.

You know that's not true. You know that miscellaneous newsgroups exist.
You yourself pointed it out in other followups. You are just trolling.

>>Handwaiving -- I just KNOW it will work! -- invariably leads to a
>>failed newsgroup.

>I assume that might not be a problem for you, because empty groups are
>not a problem in any way.

Don't shift the topic to something else because you utterly lack a
counterargument. My position on EMPTY newsgroup is that rmgrouping them
is pointless busywork that has nothing to do with improving discussion,
and that it's possible to revive a newsgroup later if there's interest.

That has nothing to do with criticism of a proposed newsgroup or having
reasonable expectations of a proponent that he is to do the hard work
necessary to make sure the newsgroup doesn't fail shortly after that
newgroup message was sent.

>I advocate in deleting them, so if comp.lang.go fails, it could simply
>be deleted in 2 years if it really fails.

Your position was handwaiving the first time you said it. Repeating it
doesn't make it a better argument.

A hierarchy administrator's rmgroup message DOES NOT universally remove
a newsgroup. Usenet, whose administration is decentralized, does not and
cannot work like that. That you personally disapprove of News sites that
won't act on control messages is an absurd position given that those
News administrators run Usenet.

None of them work for you. You cannot tell them what to do.

>>>You seem to still not understand what the concept of an administered
>>>hierarchy is. Again: The concept is that the hierarchy is the same on
>>>all machines carrying it and NOT that every operator creates groups
>>>as he likes.

>>No. That's absolutely untrue.

>Then explain me the concept.

I have all throughout this thread and prior discussions. You refuse
to understand that the fundamental nature of decentralized administration
of Usenet makes your position flat out wrong.

>For me it looks like you're having huge trouble in distinguishing
>intentional anarchy (alt.*) and administered hierarchies where a central
>board decides what should be done.

You have this strange notion that when you deliberately misuse the word
"central" in restating your lousy argument that it will somehow convince
me that you've improved your argument.

The word "central" is being abused by you. It does not and cannot refer
to anything to do with Usenet and hierarchy administration.

>If your assumption would apply to most operators, the big 8 board and
>dana could simply close, because every operators does what he thinks
>is right and doesn't care about the big 8 decisions anyway.

>The reality show that this is simply not the case for most servers.

You are under the mistaken impression that there is a hypothetical
ideal process, and that this hypothetical process can somehow overcome
all problems with the actual practice of starting a newsgroup.

You're wrong. There is no ideal process. alt.* groups don't necessarily
fail. Groups whose newgroup messages were sent by hierarchy
administrators don't necessarily succeed.

We actually do know that hierarchy administrators' opinions as to what
constitutes a useful newsgroup based on personal preference and not
justification based on actual discussion led to an underutilized
hierarchy humanities.* and skirv's "It's obvious!" dozens of Big *
newsgroups redundant of alt.* newsgroups whose users did not want to use
skirv's newsgroups.

There are no guarantees. The number of newsgroups is unimportant.
Whether the control message was sent by the proponent or a hierarchy
administrator is unimportant.

Am 25.09.2023 um 16:36:35 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> A hierarchy administrator's rmgroup message DOES NOT universally
> remove a newsgroup.

Did I say that?

> Usenet, whose administration is decentralized, does not and cannot
> work like that. That you personally disapprove of News sites that
> won't act on control messages is an absurd position given that those
> News administrators run Usenet.

> None of them work for you.

That is true.

> You cannot tell them what to do.

That is not true. I can tell everybody everything, but the admin can
decide himself what to do. He doesn't even need to listen to me at all
if he doesn't want. Legally and technically he can create and delete
groups as he wants.

> The word "central" is being abused by you.

Abused by me - now it is going funny.

> It does not and cannot refer to anything to do with Usenet and
> hierarchy administration.

Then explain what big-8 management or dana are.

> You are under the mistaken impression that there is a hypothetical
> ideal process, and that this hypothetical process can somehow overcome
> all problems with the actual practice of starting a newsgroup.

No, I simply wanna say that the main problem in creating discussions in
new groups isn't convincing admins to process control messages (most of
the do it anyway).

> The number of newsgroups is unimportant.

Then it should be fine to create thousands of empty groups.

> >>Not everybody agrees with a hierarchy administrator's rmgrouping.
>
> >I know that, but for what purpose? . . .
>
> Hey, Marco? It's long past time for you to stop second guessing how a
> News administrator presents Usenet to his own users. Your nonstop need
> to question the choices made by people who are in charge and don't
> answer to you is irrelevant.

I have never asked a news server admin about that. I also don't know
normal servers that behave that way. I know that Google does that, but
I don't know if there are still people there who are responsible for
the NNTP servers.

> >>>You don't need to like it, but that is the common sense and all
> >>>good server I know do that.
>
> >>Like everything else, it's not my business.
>
> >Then feel free to stay out of it, it is your freedom.
>
> I am literally out of it, same as you.

I agree with that.

> >>>That would result in a big mess, like alt.*.
>
> >>Lack of hierarchy administration is not what's wrong with alt.*.
> >>Lots of useless proponents were the problem. Despite empty groups,
> >>there have always been well-used newsgroups in alt.*. In
> >>administered hierarchies, there have always been failed newsgroups.
> >>
>
> >The amount of empty groups in alt is much higher than in other
> >hierarchies because in most times they aren't being deleted.
>
> You've truly got your fingers in your ears. I just stated what the
> fundamental problem was. You deliberately MISSTATED it in an
> irrelevancy. In an unadministered hierarchy, by definition, there is
> no hierarchy administrator. There is no checkgroups sent by a
> hierarchy administrator. There is no hierarchy administrator to prune
> alt.* groups.
>
> That sentence was entirely irrelevant to alt.*.
>
> Your position that empty newsgroups should be pruned is irrelevant.
> You justified it with the ridiculous notion that a user looking for a
> group to subscribe to won't perform a key word search, that he'll
> just look at the entire list without searching it all all. Even on a
> small public News server, that list is going to be thousands of
> newsgroups long.

That is true, but even a keyword search doesn't guarantee that you find
active groups, you will also find those that are empty for years.

> >The proponent is not always the fault like you said, sometimes the
> >topic isn't being discussed there anymore, like for other groups
> >too.
>
> That's the biggest example there is of a lousy proponent. If there's
> no discussion on Usenet, then the group is unnecessary.

That's why advocate for deleting such groups.
There are topics that were discussed in the past, but not anymore,
regardless of the reason.

> There's always a broader newsgroup or a miscellaneous newsgroup (especially
> in the Big 8) in which to hold that discussion.

Indeed, that is true.

> The number of newsgroups is unimportant.

You still don't want to understand how people subscribe to groups.

> Thanks to the decentralized nature of Usenet, he is under no
> obligation to process a control message upon issuance.

That is technically and legally true, but the reality is that many news
server operators simply process the messages, even if there is nobody
forcing them to do so.

> >Everybody is free not to follow them, but most of them do for
> >rational reasons.
>
> You neither know nor understand what the reason was. You don't get to
> declare the action rational or irrational. You don't run things. You
> are irrelevant. Your opinion of how a site is run is irrelevant.

You are irrelevant too, because you can't support your argument with
facts I asked for.

> The most likely reason is that he's made a thoughtful decision about
> which groups to offer his user. That's entirely different than the
> only reason you believe is rational, that checkgroups should be
> processed just because it's checkgroups.

The the reason of the decision would be very interesting.

> In making that thoughtful decision he may very well decide NOT to
> process checkgroups, which you would deem irrational. Fortunately for
> Usenet and its decentralized administration, both you and your opinion
> are irrelevant.

You are irrelevant too. Feel free to put me in your killfile, as my
post are irrelevant for you.

> I've said this repeatedly. Stop misstating my opinion when you already
> know what it is. You do this because you don't have an argument.

You don't have real arguments for not processing control messages on a
general purpose server.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 25.09.2023 um 16:36:35 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>. . .

>>It does not and cannot refer to anything to do with Usenet and
>>hierarchy administration.

>Then explain what big-8 management or dana are.

"Hierarchy administration" is the correct term. It is NEVER qualified
with the word "central" because Usenet administration is decentralized.

>>You are under the mistaken impression that there is a hypothetical
>>ideal process, and that this hypothetical process can somehow overcome
>>all problems with the actual practice of starting a newsgroup.

>No, I simply wanna say that the main problem in creating discussions in
>new groups isn't convincing admins to process control messages (most of
>the do it anyway).

The main problem is lack of discussion. All that's important is
interesting on topic discussion.

>>The number of newsgroups is unimportant.

>Then it should be fine to create thousands of empty groups.

The number of newsgroups has no bearing on whether there is interesting
on topic discussion in some newsgroups.

>>>>. . .

>>>The proponent is not always the fault like you said, sometimes the
>>>topic isn't being discussed there anymore, like for other groups
>>>too.

>>That's the biggest example there is of a lousy proponent. If there's
>>no discussion on Usenet, then the group is unnecessary.

>That's why advocate for deleting such groups. . . .

You advocate for a solution to a problem that does not exist. It's
specifically irrelevant to the newsgroup proposal process.

>>. . .

>You don't have real arguments for not processing control messages on a
>general purpose server.

As it's none of my business whether a News server processes a particular
control message, I don't need to make an argument. As it's none of your
business either, I don't need to make an argument that you will accept.

Quite frankly, your refusal to accept Usenet the way it is truly isn't my
business, so I'll shut the fuck up now.

On 9/25/2023 11:36 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Or far more likely, he'll hear of a new group because the proponent is
>>> actively promoting it and he'll be interested in posting to it.

>> Promoting it exactly where?

> Promoting it where discussion is already taking place. That's why it's
> critical for the proponent to be well known for discussing the topic and
> to learn where discussion is already taking place on Usenet.

Adam, I'd like to remind you of a recent event.
Not so long ago, E-S finally removed the majority of the Microsoft
groups, as it had been years and years since MS announced they were
shutting down their participation and their server. One of the groups
was operating system XP something or another. Both alt.windows7.general
and alt.comp.os.windows-10 had a large amount of discussion on having a
group for XP only discussion. Though most of the discussion was
complaining about Ray's removal and threatening to go elsewhere since
other administrators still carried the groups. A case could be made
that XP discussion could be sustained in either of those groups and a
new XP group was unnecessary, and in fact that does happen now.
However, the amount of people who voiced disapproval of losing the group
and would have used a new group, likely would have known of it because
of the discussion going on in those groups if it would have happened.
In the end it was all talk because nobody was willing to be a proponent
and go through the creation process. It simply died.

Point is, I completely agree with you and this discussion on XP, though
futile, was far greater than the limited discussion I've seen on the new
GO group which has amounted to little more than "me too, I'd read it"
posts.

BTW, I also completely agree about eliminating so called unused groups.
Many times I've gone and tried to find something written years ago that
I remembered. I understand the need for some to think doing something
like this might help the health of usenet, but agree the only thing that
helps is people starting talk and using it. Removing anything should be
done with extreme caution.

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
>On 9/25/2023 11:36 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Or far more likely, he'll hear of a new group because the proponent is
>>>> actively promoting it and he'll be interested in posting to it.
>
>>> Promoting it exactly where?
>
>> Promoting it where discussion is already taking place. That's why it's
>> critical for the proponent to be well known for discussing the topic and
>> to learn where discussion is already taking place on Usenet.
>
>Adam, I'd like to remind you of a recent event.
>Not so long ago, E-S finally removed the majority of the Microsoft
>groups, as it had been years and years since MS announced they were
>shutting down their participation and their server. One of the groups
>was operating system XP something or another. Both alt.windows7.general
>and alt.comp.os.windows-10 had a large amount of discussion on having a
>group for XP only discussion. Though most of the discussion was
>complaining about Ray's removal and threatening to go elsewhere since
>other administrators still carried the groups. A case could be made
>that XP discussion could be sustained in either of those groups and a
>new XP group was unnecessary, and in fact that does happen now.
>However, the amount of people who voiced disapproval of losing the group
>and would have used a new group, likely would have known of it because
>of the discussion going on in those groups if it would have happened.
>In the end it was all talk because nobody was willing to be a proponent
>and go through the creation process. It simply died.

alt.os.windows-xp was newgrouped in 2001. It's likely created on plenty
of News servers or one can request its creation.

>Point is, I completely agree with you and this discussion on XP, though
>futile, was far greater than the limited discussion I've seen on the new
>GO group which has amounted to little more than "me too, I'd read it"
>posts.

>BTW, I also completely agree about eliminating so called unused groups.
>Many times I've gone and tried to find something written years ago that
>I remembered. I understand the need for some to think doing something
>like this might help the health of usenet, but agree the only thing that
>helps is people starting talk and using it. Removing anything should be
>done with extreme caution.

Thanks for making the point that it is possible to revive groups that
haven't had discussion in quite a while.

Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:

[...]

> > It is well known that German Usenetters take their newsgroups very
> > seriously, even to the point of frowning on "noms de net".
>
> I can see an abuse complaint coming my way from an aspiring apprentice
> netKKKop already.

[...]

I must say (I hope needlessly) that I am most grateful to be granted
access to Usenet by your service, Ray. I hope that an aspiring netKKKop
might directly reproach a misguided person who has given offense with
ill-mannered behaviour, rather than making complaints to the NSP thus
abused. If I myself have transgressed, I apologise.

--
\|/
(((Ï))) - Mr Ön!on
When we shake the ketchup bottle
At first none comes and then a lot'll.